On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:48:56PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Brian May]
> > I think these should belong in a separate category then ndiswrapper,
> > because, unlike ndiswrapper, they are not even "complete" packages
> > without non-free software, and this will never change for the
> > lifetime of the installer package.
>
> Never underestimate the Debian universe's collective ability to
> contrive a justification for something. It could be said that an
> installer for some random bits that can't even be carried on non-free
> should actually go in main because, in some hypothetical alternate
> universe future scenario, somebody _might_ reimplement the non-free
> component in a free way, and furthermore, it might make sense to
> install it using the scripts in the wrapper package rather than
> packaging it natively. Perhaps the developer of the free replacement
> would like to have the wrapper package on his system in order to
> facilitate testing.
I don't think you've ever seen someone say this; and I don't think
you'll ever see someone say so either.
There is a world of difference between "this package implements an API
that just happens to be implemented by non-free software only" (which
isn't even the case for ndiswrapper, unlike what many contributors to
this thread want us to believe) and "this package downloads and installs
one particular piece of non-free software". If you don't see the
difference, you're blind.
[...]
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4